In Re Rj
708 S.E.2d 626
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Jefferson County Juvenile Court terminated the rights of the biological parents of R.J. and J.G. and denied the mother's motion for new trial.
- The mother and father are step-siblings whose relationship began before reaching adulthood and who had ongoing stability and housing issues, as well as prior abuse and overdose-related incidents involving R.J.
- The Department of Family and Children Services pursued reunification efforts with multiple case plans, but both parents failed to achieve stability in employment, housing, or parenting.
- Psychological and psycho-sexual evaluations indicated serious concerns about the mother’s reliability and risk to children, and the father’s failure to protect and inconsistent involvement.
- Guardians ad litem and case managers testified that the children were thriving in foster/adoptive placements and that permanent, stable homes were needed.
- On July 20, 2008, the juvenile court ordered termination of parental rights; the mother’s new trial motion was denied in 2009, prompting the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate mother's rights | Mother argues deprivation not likely to continue; insufficient proof of ongoing unfitness. | Department contends past persistent unfitness supports likelihood of continued deprivation. | Sufficient evidence supports likelihood of continued deprivation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate father's rights | Father argues lack of ongoing incapacity; recent conduct not enough to support termination. | Department asserts four-factor showing of parental misconduct or inability is satisfied by past behavior and current risks. | Sufficient evidence supports parental misconduct or inability. |
| Best interests of the children | Mother contends termination not in R.J.'s best interests due to adoptability concerns and relationship considerations. | Department argues permanent placement and adoptive prospects support termination as best for both children. | Termination in the best interests of the children was supported. |
| Adequacy of trial court findings and conclusions | Mother asserts the order lacked sufficient factual/legal findings. | Department asserts the findings and conclusions were explicit and adequate under OCGA. | Findings and conclusions were adequate and proper. |
| Children's representation at trial | Mother argues children were not represented by an attorney. | Guardian ad litem represented the children as provided by statute. | Children were adequately represented by guardian ad litem. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of S.N.H., 300 Ga.App. 321, 321-322, 685 S.E.2d 290 (2009) (Ga. App. 2009) (recognizes standard for termination appeals and deference to trial court)
- In the Interest of A.M., 259 Ga.App. 537, 543, 578 S.E.2d 226 (2003) (Ga. App. 2003) (permits consideration of permanency and stability in best interests)
- In the Interest of D.H., 243 Ga.App. 778, 784, 534 S.E.2d 466 (2000) (Ga. App. 2000) (discusses weighing past conduct vs. future promises in deprivation analysis)
- In the Interest of M.D.F., 263 Ga. App. 50, 52, 587 S.E.2d 199 (2003) (Ga. App. 2003) (compare past conduct with future likelihood when evaluating deprivation)
- In the Interest of D.M.K., 302 Ga.App. 168, 172(1), 690 S.E.2d 481 (2010) (Ga. App. 2010) (balances permanency needs with evidence of unfitness)